Opinions on the American Civil War

[Kiehlroy]

I'm sure this thread has been done before but I'm curious as to the most current general understanding of Civil War by AO's current general population.

What started it?

What sustained it?

Was it successful and for whom?

What were it's immediate and long term effects?

No spoon-fed babyfood crap please. Real opinions.

[Max]

I know absolutely nothing about it, except one side had an army of slaves and the other an army of droids. Or was that clones and droids?


(I should edit this to say my tongue in cheek remark was made to emphasise the fact that British education very very very lightly touches on America. Which is why in a brief forum....incident a few months ago, when a certain American member claimed "The British are still SEETHING over the revolution" it left the British members of this forum somewhat bemused.

We can genuinely claim to be utterly ignorant of every single shred of American history that didnt involve a Mcdonalds or Rihanna)

[Bob]

The Civil War started out as a "who's the boss" argument with the federal govt claiming it's laws superceded the laws of state governments. Southern states didn't want the US govt interfering with their businesses and "way of life". The actual war was started over the right of secession from the "Union" of states, the southern states or confederacy believed they had this right and were willing to go to war to enforce it. The slavery issue was already a big religious, political, and social and the emancipation proclamation was used to shore up support for a war effort that at the time was sustaining heavy losses for the north. Northern Generals were under the impression that larger numbers of troops would insure the victory over the south, but they were managed poorly and the south won some important and demoralizing battles. While the South had the edge in military leadership, their smaller industrial capacity and poorly equipped troops would sustain larger losses at the battle of Gettysburg.Gen. Robert E. Lee, sent wave after wave of troops to capture high ground in violation of the rules of war and a desire to recover for losses sustained. Afterwards they went into a defensive stand which could not be sustained by their industrial capacity and Sherman and Grant cut through the southern territories like a hot knife thru butter. The slavery issue severely undermined the agricultural capacity of the south and they suffered bitterly over the reconstruction era, however this turn of events spurred innovation and invention which led to modern agriculture practice. That's the short version, there are many wonderful books written on this subject, all available at your local Library. Tell them Bob says hi!

[Reef Badlaw]

Bob basically summed-it-up pretty succinctly.

The Civil War was chock-full of 'incidents' with all manner of ramifications, mostly short-term. I can wax windy on specific incidents better than commenting broadly on the entire thing.

[lazserus]

I know absolutely nothing about it, except one side had an army of slaves and the other an army of droids. Or was that clones and droids?
Most Americans don't even really know much about the Civil War. We tend to know very little of our own history, leaving it up to myth and legend to tell us what happened. For instance, most Americans still believe George Washington had wooden teeth, was a brilliant general, and chopped down his father's cherry tree. All three are untrue. Washington did, later in life, wear dentures, but they were made of ivory, not wood. Washington's victories during the American Revolution were mostly luck, not results of brilliant tactical planning; it just so happens that the victories won were important ones. And George Washington never chopped down his father's cherry tree.


Bob basically summed-it-up pretty succinctly.

The Civil War was chock-full of 'incidents' with all manner of ramifications, mostly short-term. I can wax windy on specific incidents better than commenting broadly on the entire thing.
One thing that Bob left out, which I feel is important, is the issue of slavery and how it reflected the Southern economy. The South's economy had been in steady decline after the American Revolution, and by the mid-19th century its economy was quite fragile. The Union had begun building larger cities and connecting them via railroad, these cities beacons of economic progress. The South, however, was not interested in this change and wanted to keep their simple agrarian economy. The problem was slavery was terribly inefficient, but the Southerners were too stubborn to realize this.

There was a slight uproar regarding slavery, but a vast minority, which romantics tend to ignore. In 1863, New York City erupted in riots as a response to the draft, and a substantial number of blacks were brutalized and murdered, as the population felt they were the blame for the draft and especially the war. Yes, there were plenty of anti-slavery proponents, but the biggest hold out was by the South for economic reasons more than race reasons. The movement toward plantation farming ultimately issued the coffin nail, as farmers became overseers instead of masters of agriculture. As generations came and went, fewer white southerners actually knew much about agriculture and more or less simply repeated what their parents and grandparents did. With the economy already fragile, removing slavery would bankrupt the South.

The South didn't want the government interfering with their "way of life," but a large part of that was for economic reasons. Their understanding of agriculture was limited to plantations, which required substantial laborers, and many wealthy owners stood to loose a great deal of future profits. Whether the war occurred or not, it's likely the South would have gone bankrupt within a few decades anyway.

[Freddy]

The immediate cause of the Civil War was the armed attack by SC militia on orders from Jefferson Davis on US property and military forces located at Fort Sumter, SC on April 12, 1861.

This conflict had been in the cards for decades and slavery was the main cause. These reasons below are the following issues related to slavery from Independence in 1776 onward.

US states in the North begin to outlaw slavery in the 1780's with about 800,000 slaves in the US with only about 25-50,000 in the North.

US outlaws slavery in the NW Territory 1787.

US Constitution 1789 allows for slaves 3/5ths to be counted toward representation, provides a remedy for fugitive slaves, and allows for the end the slave trade in 20 years.

Congress passes a Fugitive Slave Act and Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin increases demand for slaves in 1793.

Slavery in the North all but ends in 1804, with 1,000,000 slaves in the South.

US Slave trade ends January 1, 1808.

American Colonization Society formed in 1816 to move free Blacks to Africa.

Missouri Compromise 1820 over slavery in Louisiana Territory and admission of slave/free states.

SC Nullification Crisis in 1830 with John C. Calhoun admitting privately it was about slavery and not the tariff.

American Anti-Slavery Society formed in Boston in 1831 with about 2,000,000 slaves in the South.

Mexican-American War 1846-1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo angering many Southerners for not taking all of Mexico to expand slavery.

Wilmot Proviso 1847 Congress fails to ban slavery in territories taken in Mexican War

Compromise of 1850 over slavery admits California as a free state, outlaws slave trade in DC, and creates a new and stronger Fugitive Slave Act.

Uncle Tom's Cabin published in 1852 with 300,000 copies sold.

Congress passes the Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854 with popular sovereignty concerning slavery in the territories abrogating the Missouri Compromise.

Bleeding Kansas from 1856-1858 kills 200 over slavery

Dred Scott decision over slavery in 1857.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates over slavery in 1858.

John Brown's failed slave rebellion in 1859.

Republican Abraham Lincoln advocating no expansion of slavery into the territories wins the presidency in 1860 with about 4.000,000 slaves in the South.

South Carolina and six cotton states secede 1860-1861 and form a Confederacy. Four declare in writing that slavery is the reason.

Fort Sumter attacked by Confederacy April 12, 1986, starting Civil War, and four more Southern States secede.

What was the cause of the Civil War?

[UVsaturated]

Not super knowledgeable about the Civil War but my best guess is that it was less about freeing slaves and more about the politics of economics dealing with energy and the industrial revolution.

Up north they got industry driven by steam and electric, down south they got the negro doing the work of the machinery. So it was about competition between markets more than anything else. By eliminating slavery, it just pissed off one opposing side.

I think the emancipation of slaves was just the cover the Feds were using to make it seem like it had a moral reason rather than one of pure economic greed. Just think, without all those slaves, the north could sell the south all the machinery they needed to farm all that land.

[Bob]

One thing that Bob left out, which I feel is important, is the issue of slavery and how it reflected the Southern economy. The South's economy had been in steady decline after the American Revolution, and by the mid-19th century its economy was quite fragile. The Union had begun building larger cities and connecting them via railroad, these cities beacons of economic progress. The South, however, was not interested in this change and wanted to keep their simple agrarian economy. The problem was slavery was terribly inefficient, but the Southerners were too stubborn to realize this.

Agreed. I would also like to point out that the economic disagreements continue to this day and that the parties have a lot of the same issues but just switched names. The Republicans of that day are now Democrats and the Dems are Republican.

[Cartesiantheater]

Saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but was instead about economics is like saying the Iraq War wasn't about oil, it was about economics. Sure, the slaves were a means to an end, but that was the big one for their agricultural economies.

If this was about economics, and the Southern economy depended upon slave labor to fuel their agricultural economy, I don't think there is anything illogical about saying the war was about slavery.

[Vuall]

And here's me thinking it was about the stamp act of 1765

[Beatnik Bob]

The South didn't want the government interfering with their "way of life," but a large part of that was for economic reasons. Their understanding of agriculture was limited to plantations, which required substantial laborers, and many wealthy owners stood to loose a great deal of future profits. Whether the war occurred or not, it's likely the South would have gone bankrupt within a few decades anyway.
I agree.
But I'm going to have to disagree on a few points, in that the south was actually quite rich and prosperous. Yes, consumption of cotton was decreasing world wide, but Southern businessmen were not inept and stupid. They were already looking to develop industry, and had a strong railway network (before it was largely destroyed by Sherman).
The south had much ingenuity, and its "aristocracy" funded projects. Ironclads, submarines, landmines, and the precursor to the "modern metal ship" were developed and used by the south.

The economy wasn't quite as dismal as you give it credit, though it would certainly be phased out. The South would have likely become more industrialized in the future. Slavery would have, in fact, been eventually phased out in the South.

One of the main complaints was that the North was imposing tariffs and taxes on the South so as to prop up Northern Industry. The South didn't appreciate that its wealth was being used to keep the North afloat, particularly because they saw the North as fairly hypocritical.
Which was the dichotomy of the situation. That many Northerners approved of the benefits of slavery (in that slavery essentially helped indirectly fund their factories and business even though it was illegal in the North), but opposed the practice.

Taxation and tariffs are certainly a cause for secession. As apart of the many reasons cited for states rights, premier of which was "slavery," though slavery in and of itself could never have been "the" cause because it's only one thing, no matter how salient.



Saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but was instead about economics is like saying the Iraq War wasn't about oil, it was about economics. Sure, the slaves were a means to an end, but that was the big one for their agricultural economies.
The major difference being, of course, that many U.S. leaders today started/perpetuated a war in Iraq for oil, while many Confederate leaders at the time of the Civil War opposed slavery as an immoral practice--including, but not limited to, Robert E. Lee himself.

Even though Robert E. Lee opposed slavery, it did not stop him from fighting for Virginia. He was, in fact, asked to be a general for the Union but declined.
When it comes down to it, the Civil War was unlike the Iraq war in nearly every way. It split families apart even, from the ideology of State's Rights.

The specific "states right" in question may have been slavery (in addition to taxation and tariffs that forced the south to prop up Northern industry and the northern economy), but the general demand was states rights themselves.

Thus where the term "confederate" comes from. The South wanted a Confederacy and not a Federalism. And those are the bones of the issue.
The fact that Northern historical white-washing has eradicated the actual political ideology behind the Civil War and limited completely and utterly to slavery is just a testament to the fact that the South's plight may have been reasonable from a political perspective.


However, like the Iraq War, the Civil War was illegal because there is no law that allows the Federal Government to attack and invade State Governments. Even after South Carolina attacked federal property, it was within the government's rights to only attack South Carolina militias.
Which means an illegal war was waged on North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, et al. All the governments that never fired one shot against union soldiers, yet were invaded regardless.

[lazserus]

But I'm going to have to disagree on a few points, in that the south was actually quite rich and prosperous. Yes, consumption of cotton was decreasing world wide, but Southern businessmen were not inept and stupid. They were already looking to develop industry, and had a strong railway network (before it was largely destroyed by Sherman).
For starters, the South's railway network was extraordinarily weak. By the time the war started it was decades behind the Union. I'm rusty on my Civil War history (only studied it briefly while studying economic history), so I won't argue details...well, because I just don't have the knowledge to.

One of the biggest issues with the Southern economy was the decline of cotton exportation. Cotton was, in essence, the major crop of the Southern agrarian industry. This decline was a result of Egypt and India tapping into the cotton trade without using slave labor, thus their prices were much lower because they didn't have all this overhead to make up for in purchasing slave labor. Even before slavery was abolished, the slave trade was shut down, so purchasing slaves had to be done locally, and only a few locations (namely Virginia) offered slaves for sale. Knowing well that there was little to no competition, and Southern plantation owners required slave labor, these few outlets increased the prices of slaves dramatically.


The south had much ingenuity, and its "aristocracy" funded projects. Ironclads, submarines, landmines, and the precursor to the "modern metal ship" were developed and used by the south.
I'm not saying Southerners were full-blown idiots. I'm saying they hit a wall when it comes to [agrarian] economic progression. The war machines developed by the South during the war certainly deserve attention, but these technologies in no way aided them in agriculture. Just the same as new technologies, specifically as they aided the war machine, in WWII did not help the American economy. Beginning a decade later, however, many of these technologies were introduced to civilian companies and thus made impacts on GDP (think SONAR).

New technologies in the face of war have been developed throughout history, but they never directly affect the contemporary economy. The economics of war is fairly complex, and most of the time new developments, while aiding the war effort, never prevent economic fault.

[Anarch]

I thought the proper cause and effect was that new technologies , industrial revolutions , are what lead to new wars.

Kinda like the internet coming first then all these arab revolutions

Or the cotten gin internal combustion engines and iron clads being developed

Then the civil war.

Or the advancments in microscopy and understanding of flight dynamics

Then world war one..


First we get a new technology that changes the world... Then the nations/corporations of the world fight for control of it.

[lazserus]

I thought the proper cause and effect was that new technologies , industrial revolutions , are what lead to new wars....

First we get a new technology that changes the world... Then the nations/corporations of the world fight for control of it.
Sometimes this is true, but often new technologies are developed during war. It depends on the technologies and how they affect the realm in which they are first employed. The Ironclads and early submarines were developed by the South during the Civil War, not before. These are examples of war machines, not machines designed for domestic use. Sonar was first developed by the US Navy during WWII, but in the late 1950s the technology was declassified and sold to domestic companies, becoming common place for geologists and oceanographers.

The concept of cause and effect, especially as it pertains to history, is not only muddy and convoluted, it's philosophical conjecture. In reality there is no black and white, no simple cause and effect. Causality can be very complicated.

The history of the Industrial Revolution is much broader than most believe. If you're interested in a detailed monograph of the subject, you can look at David S. Landes's Unbound Prometheus (http://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Prometheus-Technical-Industrial-Development/dp/0521094186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308075225&sr=8-1). The Industrial Revolution did not directly lead to war. More or less, the Revolution was a change in thinking and the advent of new machines regarding the production of domestic products.

Now, by today's standards things are much different. Today, particularly with capitalist countries, civilian technology and services receive contracts from the government (think Halliburton). Most (but certainly not all) military technology is developed and produced by civilian contractors. The politics and economics involved can get hairy.

That being said, what can lead to war is contracts. Not so much technology, but contracts. If we study the Iraq War, we see that nearly all contracts were given to Halliburton. With the Bush and Cheney both being primary shareholders for Halliburton, it's no wonder we went to war. War creates contracts for these types of companies, and once these companies go to work during war time, stocks rise, making shareholders wealthy. The Shadowrun and Cyberpunk concepts of corporations running the world is not that far from reality. But that's today's warfare, not warfare in the 19th century.

I didn't mean to stray so far off topic.

[Anarch]

I thought the submarine were invented earlier then that...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine


First military submarines

The first military submarine was Turtle (1775), a hand-powered acorn-shaped device designed by the American David Bushnell to accommodate a single person. It was the first verified submarine capable of independent underwater operation and movement, and the first to use screws for propulsion. During the American Revolutionary War, Turtle (operated by Sgt. Ezra Lee, Continental Army) tried and failed to sink the British warship HMS Eagle, flagship of the blockaders in New York harbor on September 7, 1776.[1]

And I thought the first ironclad launched before the civil war...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship


The first ironclad battleship, La Gloire, was launched by the French Navy in November 1859.[2]

First humanity finds new kick ass technology... then humanity bickers amongst itself about who should profit from it . That is my opinion as I follow the economic history. That seems to be the pattern to me.

[Beatnik Bob]

I thought the proper cause and effect was that new technologies , industrial revolutions , are what lead to new wars.
Wars are caused by society.
There are some substantial theories as to what causes wars, and they're generally sociological.
Social historians often draw a correlation between the periodic nature of wars. They suggest that because history and society are predictable, that wars are predictable because they follow a pattern.

For a simple analogy, let's say there is a man who fights a war. He goes to battle and bleeds. He teaches his children that war is wrong, evil, and horrible. His children note this. However, his children have children, and the grandchildren of the man who fought in war will likely view war and battle as romantic, at least more favorably. And once they fight a war they may teach their children its abhorrent nature. And so on...

You can see this directly in American culture even, where war goes from abhorrent to slightly glorified (in entertainment) due to the "generational dynamic."
There are many books written on this topic, and they all propose very unnerving evidence. Foremost of this being that one can chart major wars from WWII, to the Civil War, to the Revolutionary War, to the Glorious Revolution to the Armada Crisis--and find that they all occur periodically, at about 80-110 years after one another.
Other wars like WWI, carry a separate social dynamic. And these social dynamics are characterized to the point where a war like WWI resembles the Mexican War more so than WWII (incidentally, WWI occurs about the same amount of time after the Mexican war as WWII occurs after the Civil War).

Interesting right?
Anyway, public/social mood isn't hard to predict. Based on the research of social historians, one could adequately predict a forecast for the next century.
And as lifespans increase so will the period between each specific event. The only difficulty with this has come up recently with the effects of the internet. The internet is acting to "synchronize" the generational patterns of societies. So while America may have been preparing for another WWII, the Arab World has been entering into an Awakening--much like the awakenings experienced in Britain and America during the Protestant Reformation (1517-1542), the Puritan Awakening (1621-1642), the Great Awakening (1727-1746) the Transcendental Awakening (1822-1844), the Third Great Awakening (1886-1908), and the Consciousness Revolution (1961-1980).

Incidentally you will notice that each of these awakenings occured about the same amount of time after one another.
(In fact, Women's Suffrage is nearly a carry-over of the Third Great Awakening. The unintended/nearly arbitrary start of WWI paused the social revolution. Which may explain why it began relatively sooner, in the 1960s instead of the 1990s).
Adjusting for social/trend factors, I would put the next American "conscious revolution/awakening" at about 2040-2050/2050-2060.

I realize this is off-topic. But the point you brought up was interesting, and worth discussing.
I enjoy such discussions. :D


For starters, the South's railway network was extraordinarily weak. By the time the war started it was decades behind the Union. I'm rusty on my Civil War history (only studied it briefly while studying economic history), so I won't argue details...well, because I just don't have the knowledge to.

One of the biggest issues with the Southern economy was the decline of cotton exportation. Cotton was, in essence, the major crop of the Southern agrarian industry. This decline was a result of Egypt and India tapping into the cotton trade without using slave labor, thus their prices were much lower because they didn't have all this overhead to make up for in purchasing slave labor. Even before slavery was abolished, the slave trade was shut down, so purchasing slaves had to be done locally, and only a few locations (namely Virginia) offered slaves for sale. Knowing well that there was little to no competition, and Southern plantation owners required slave labor, these few outlets increased the prices of slaves dramatically.
Good point.
I was just stating that it's my opinion that the South would have adapted to the changing global market. Even though consumption of American cotton was in decline, the South would have developed new markets.
For starters, the South had a strong military history and military ingenuity, and with it they could have developed a premier 19th century military-industrial complex.

The South was also extremely rich, whether their economy was declining or not. And it was this wealth that created resentment of the North, because tariffs and taxes imposed on the South were designed to prop up Northern business and help the sad state of Northern Industry. The North was productive, but much of that had to do with the South being forced to fund them in the beginning.

[Beatnik Bob]

Well,

Here's the Turtle (a precursor to submarines):
http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/turtle_essex.jpg

Here's a Civil War era submarine:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,478215,00.jpg


I don't know how efficient or practical the turtle was. And to be sure, there is a reason it was never really used. So, for all practical purposes, the invention of the modern submarine goes to Confederates.

Ones definitely a barrel, and the other is more like a ship.
Some of the drawings for Turtles make it seem high tech, but whether those drawings were ever actualized to full potential is more inconclusive.

[Anarch]

I have found that the social justifications are just that, justifications to sell the wars to the masses. The power that be (Corporate and National) would go to war anyway for the various economic factors. Their wars are sold to the people for the religious reason or that humanitarian reason and yet when the dust settles and thorough examination is done we can clearly see the reasoning by following the money and finding out out who benefited the most in the end.

Wars aren't fought for grand causes. Wars are fought for profit.

[Anarch]

Well,

Here's the Turtle (a precursor to submarines):



You should of followed the wiki link. The turtle was not a precursor to submarines IT WAS a Submarine. And I only quoted from the first MILITARY submarine..

The sub marine was actually invented centuries before the civil war in the 1600s.

You can click the wiki link to learn more about history.


the invention of the modern submarine goes to Confederates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_%281862%29

Which I would really suggest you do since you seem so out of touch with the FACTUAL history.

[Beatnik Bob]

Wars aren't fought for grand causes. Wars are fought for profit.
These days that might be the case more so than ever. Even though it may not have always been that way.

Hitler certainly didn't fight for outright profit. He did, in fact, abolish money in a sense and erased much of the control of banks on people. A monetary note represented labor rather than debt or payment or some form of promissory servitude.
Hitler's goals for fighting weren't for profit, but they were still maniacal. The ultimate goal was to create a new German Empire and unite Europe and the world under a dictator.
So I'm not using Hitler as an example to show that his plight was just, only that he didn't really fight for profit. Though companies that helped him (like IBM) were certainly in it for the profit and not the ideology.

[Anarch]

You are either ignorant of the truth or you just enjoy pushing propaganda to fit your reality and I really do think it is the latter...but I can not be sure considering how out of touch you are with historical fact as made evident by your postings above.

[Beatnik Bob]

You should of followed the wiki link. The turtle was not a precursor to submarines IT WAS a Submarine.
It was a wooden barrel.

The first "modern" (emphasis on the word "modern" because there is a difference between "modern" and precursor-barrel) submarine did not exist centuries before.


And ultimately, the confederates received credit because the CSS Hunley successfully destroyed a union ship. The Alligator did not, thus it doesn't necessarily represent a success.
There are drawings and contemporary artist renditions, but not significant evidence.
Knowledge is an absolute.


For example, the Wright brothers are credited with flying the first plane even though a flying machine had been built and successfully flown by Arabs prior to 1908.

You'll see that much of history has more to do with credit than chronological facts.


The sub marine was actually invented centuries before the civil war in the 1600s.
On paper?
I'm not sure that counts. You can technically design anything within imagination.


Which I would really suggest you do since you seem so out of touch with the FACTUAL history.
Considering you likely just learned about the Alligator yourself since you spent 15 minutes looking at wikipedia, I'm not sure how condescending you should be on this topic.

[Beatnik Bob]

You are either ignorant of the truth or you just enjoy pushing propaganda to fit your reality and I really do think it is the latter...but I can not be sure considering how out of touch you are with historical fact as made evident by your postings above.
It's unfortunate that you become an asshole so soon no matter how reasonable the discussion.

If you think wars are NEVER fought for ideology, prove it with empirical evidence. No conjecture suspicions.


Even if your obsessive compulsive nature prevents recognition of this, this scenario can be broken down into two things: You stated your opinion and I stated mine. There is actually no reason for you to decide that my opinion is propaganda for no reason other than the fact that it disagrees with your opinion.

[Anarch]

It was a wooden barrel.

The first "modern" (emphasis on the word "modern" because there is a difference between "modern" and precursor-barrel) submarine did not exist centuries before.



You can try to repaint history to fit whatever world view you like, you're still incorrect.



And ultimately, the confederates received credit because the CSS Hunley successfully destroyed a union ship.


No they don't But whatever you enjoy fantasy even when links and references are provided.
.



For example, the Wright brothers are credited with flying the first plane even though a flying machine had been built and successfully flown by Arabs prior to 1908.


Yeah how about a link? YOur word isn't worth much.



You'll see that much of history has more to do with credit than chronological facts.
Only revisionists think like this.



On paper?
I'm not sure that counts. You can technically design anything within imagination.

If you weren't too lazy to click links you would know better...then again that would also prove you wrong to yourself and well all know you're not the type to try and prove yourself wrong. You live your life by the lie.




It's unfortunate that you become an asshole so soon no matter how reasonable the discussion.

I'd rather be considered an asshole then a liar like you. At least I am honest. My word carries weight. Your word is worthless.

So smoke on that pole.

[UVsaturated]

can't we all just get along????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

[Anarch]

If we all speak honestly among one another then yes We can.

I am honest.

Can't say the same for others though.

[Beatnik Bob]

You can try to repaint history to fit whatever world view you like, you're still incorrect.
The Turtle was a barrel by this definition:


Barrel: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barrel)
a round bulging vessel of greater length than breadth that is usually made of staves bound with hoops and has flat ends of equal diameter

The invention of the "modern" (emphasis on the word "modern/modern/modern") submarine doesn't go to the Turtle.


No they don't But whatever you enjoy fantasy even when links and references are provided.
Actually they were.
Credited.


Yeah how about a link? YOur word isn't worth much.
Neither is yours.
And I did not refute the links. Only your delusion suggests this to you.


Only revisionists think like this.
History is revisionism.
That's what it is. And yes the union made a modern submarine, and yes there was a barrel made in the revolutionary war.
What did the modern submarine made by the union accomplish?


If you weren't too lazy to click links you would know better..
I clicked the links.
Good job, you typed searches into wikipedia.


then again that would also prove you wrong
Your links didn't prove me wrong.
They prove a bucket was made in the Revolutionary war. But the "modern" (emphasis on the word "modern/modern/modern") submarine did not exist then.
Yes, the alligator was made in 1861, and the Hunley in 1863.
The Alligator accomplished nothing, though the Hunley did.

So in terms of historical recognition, the Hunley receives this recognition for better or for worse.
I'm not saying I care whether the Hunley is recognized or not, but the Hunley represents a successful submarine. Whereas the others may as well have been tin boxes that crumpled under the sea. There isn't significant proof that it was successful.

To use flight as an analogy again. Anyone can make something like an airplane. Not anyone can make it fly.


You live your life by the lie.
Lies like how Israel sterilizes Ethiopians. Those kind?
No, that's not baseless propaganda at all.


I'd rather be considered an asshole
You're not "considered" an asshole. You literally act like an asshole when one opinion contradicts your own opinion.
In this case, the opinion was what wars are fought over. You say all wars are fought for profit, which is patently false. I agreed wars are fought for profit, but I also gave a real-life example of how wars may also be caused by ideology.


then a liar like you. At least I am honest. My word carries weight. Your word is worthless.
Your words do not carry weight until you can back them up.
There are about 10,000 instances of you making shit up and providing an inconclusive link.
One of these instances were Ethiopians being sterilized by Israel. Another was the crack-pot correlation that Israel somehow has something to do with the ideology of slavery.

And yet you suggest the opinion of others is propaganda.


So smoke on that pole.
I'm sure that took you awhile.

[FilmCriticOne]

Not so. The War started when the South demanded -- officially and unoffically -- the spread of slavery, and issued War Ultimatums that slavery MUST be spread into the territories, or else war would ensue.

We were all taught a sanitized view of the whole thing. My family came from Virginia, in fact, we came from the Lee family, though no one knows how close to Robert at his father we were.

Still, the truth is, the war -- according to the South itself at the time -- was about the spread of slavery. Not just slavery - but the spread of slavery.

See the Southern Ultimatums issued by Southern leaders in Montgomery -- as reported in Richmond newspapers March 23, 1861. Here were headlines and long articles, which boasted and bragged about the SPREAD of slavery being the number 1 issue.

In fact, of the FIve Ultimatums, all five were about the spread of slavery. All five. This is not what some Northern historian said later, this is what the SOUTHERN leaders said at the time.

The Southern Constitution says essentiallly that -- and this was reported in the paper that day. The Southern editors said the Southern Constitution embodied these Ultimatums, that slavery must spread.

Of course, the famous speeches by VIce President Stephens were quite clear -- the war was about slavery. But also Jeff Davis -- even writing years later, said the "intolerable grievance" was about slavery (equal rights) in the territories. That some in the North did not want slavery in the territories, was what the war was about.

Kansas, as most of us know, just rejected slavery in a four year war. Less well known is the fact that people in Kansas voted 98% to 2 % to keep slavery out forever. Few places on earth were more against slavery than Kansas.

Still -- despite that -- the Southern leaders DEMANDED -- under promise of war -- that slavery MUST be "accepted and respected" in the territories. Never mind that people there were violently opposed to slavery. SLavery MUST spread.

As Toombs shouted to cheering crowds "EXPAND OR PERISH". He was talking about expanding slavery.

As the governor of Florida said in his own "Declaration of Causes" --"just stopping the spread of slavery is like burning us to death slowly".

Few of us are taught how violent and extreme the efforts were to spread slavery - but that was the general and protracted debate for decades. That is what the "Compromise" of 1820 and 1850. Those were not "compromises" any more than a 7-11 night time robbery is a compromise. Each time , slave owners and their families demanded the spread of slavery, or promised war. Each time the Union went along, and allowed it.

But here, in 1861, the South first seceded -- and THEN demanded the spread of slavery. The war was about who got control of the west, was slavery going to spread or not?

That is what Lincoln said, that is what Davis said, that is what many of the leaders said, one way or another. That was the general understanding of the day. That understanding is visible even now, in the Southern newspapers and documents and speeches from that period.

After the South lost, according to Confederate leader John Mosbey, they changed their excuses. Mosbey said that he never heard of ANY OTHER reason, than slavery, at the time. After we lost, he said, men made up all kinds of lofty excuses.

But the issue of who got their way regarding the SPREAD of slavery, was the issue. And the South said so, over, and over, and over. In headlines, in speeches, in books, in documents.

We should really teach that basic truth -- but it's an ugly, and embarrassing truth. We don't like to teach our children that part of our country went to war to SPREAD slavery, and insisted they were led by God.

Read the Southern newspapers and books and speeches from that era. You migh learn something. I did.

[Anarch]

The Turtle was a barrel by this definition:



The definition of bullshit?

Anyone with half a brain can see your full of shit dude.

You just can't stand to be wrong and you're more then willing to lie to try and look right/ But that doesn't really matter since lies don't make things right.

Besides that the Turtle you keep clinging too was not the first submarine invented. Submarines existed before that too.

[lazserus]

I originally wanted to multiquote, but there's just too much to quote, so I'll do this the old school way (quoting without linking).


I thought the submarine were invented earlier then that...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine
First order is you rely solely on Wikipedia, which is the worst place to go for historical records. Mathematics, physics, any hard sciences that can be supported by undisputed equations works there. History? Not even close.

Second order is that I don't think you read the entry. There's a difference between conceptual and applied technology. This ONE submarine (1775 Turtle) turned out to be ineffective. Even the early Southern submarines were problematic, though a few crude designs managed to keep the occupiers alive. Concepts and applications are two completely different things. Leonardo da Vinci in detail described ideas for bringing men to the skies, but it wasn't until the opening of the 20th century that the first manned flight occurred. And it took more than a decade before the option was taken seriously enough to put into production...WORLD WAR I. That's right, during war, not before.

Seriously, don't try and challenge trained people by hitting Wikipedia. You'll get nowhere.


For a simple analogy, let's say there is a man who fights a war. He goes to battle and bleeds. He teaches his children that war is wrong, evil, and horrible. His children note this. However, his children have children, and the grandchildren of the man who fought in war will likely view war and battle as romantic, at least more favorably. And once they fight a war they may teach their children its abhorrent nature. And so on...
I could kiss you for this. This an astute point that many ignore. It's a good historical analysis. This does not only apply to WWII, but it applies centuries before. War is romanticized by those who do not experience it, and especially romanticized by those who've never served as a soldier. There are plenty of implications here, but I love the way you put it.


Anyway, public/social mood isn't hard to predict. Based on the research of social historians, one could adequately predict a forecast for the next century.
I am sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The notion that history repeats itself is a saying more than a reality. Simple-minded historians can scream "AH-HA" after an event occurs, but there's no way to predict anything. I agree that the knowledge of history helps us to prevent repeating our mistakes, but reality doesn't function on a strict, fatalistic timeline. Every war was fought over something different, including today's wars. Surely we can find similarities, but all war is similar. There exists too many aspects and potential changes in society and culture around the world to predict even the next decade. I can attest to this not only based on my education, but personal experience. Anyone born in the 1970s can attest to what I'm driving at. Hell, even if you were born in the 1980s you have a hint. Society changes faster than we can change our pants.


Wars aren't fought for grand causes. Wars are fought for profit.
And this is news? Apparently you think wars in the past were fought over honor or damsels. War is war, and it has never been executed for simple or honorable reasons. There has never been grand cause. We're human, we go to war. As morbid as it sounds, history shows us that we humans are incapable of avoiding war. It takes simply one aggravated person capable of taking power to create war. It's that simple. There is no honor in war, there is no heavenly scheme. There never was and there never will be.


It's unfortunate that you become an asshole so soon no matter how reasonable the discussion.
Although I don't disagree, I remember when you were once this way. You have sprouted so much and I am proud. You are all growns up! Sorry, didn't mean to stray but I wanted to share my cheer.


You can try to repaint history to fit whatever world view you like, you're still incorrect.
Your version of history comes from Wikipedia. Are you really going to challenge someone based on a Wikipedia article, one of which you obviously didn't read fully? It seems that YOU want to repaint history, not the other way around. When someone challenges your understanding, you think they're full of it. Good thing the real world doesn't work that way.

History can be debated when the evidence is scarce enough to require opinions, but mostly educated opinions. I've worked on a number of projects wherein the evidence existed but wasn't clear, thus we debated interpretation. History is not a science, but to get to the truth we have to treat it as such. What we once thought, what we want to believe, has no place in the study or argument of history.

Now, can we get back to the topic? Civil War!

[Anarch]

First order is you rely solely on Wikipedia,




Negative.

First order is You said submarines and ironclads were invented during the US civil war. You are wrong.

And the only reason you attack my source is because you can't refute the information. Attempting to kill the messager maybe the next best thing in a dirty debate but wouldn't you like to keep it clean? I mean wiki has references that are cited you know.

You spoke on something I knew about something you yourself admitted to being a little rusty on because it had been awhile since you "took civil war courses for your economic history classes"... I think that is how you said it.

Alas.. The technology was already their before the US civil war.

Don't go down like BB.



And this is news? Apparently you think wars in the past were fought over honor or damsels.


WTF? How did you arrive to that conclusion? I mean you quoted me saying wars are fought for profit more then ideological principles. More over I was trying to get that point across to BB, I don't understand why you're running with it or why you're misconstruing it so baddly


Apparently indeed ...WTF?



There is no honor in war, there is no heavenly scheme. There never was and there never will be.

and I agree. I never said anything differently.




Your version of history comes from Wikipedia.


Negative and you should challenge the information provided not the messager of the information. As I said, such tactics are weak.

Again you said yourself you were not too familiar with the subject matter but you just happened to speak on stuff I am familiar with .

Ironclads and submarines existed before the US civil war.

Not on paper but in reality.

Don't go down like BB man.

[lazserus]

Aright, Anarch. You're basically charging me in your response that I'm taking you out of context and presuming certain information I should not. I will submit that perhaps I have. But this response...oh, this will be interesting as you've also twisted my words.

I love historical debate!

First order is You said submarines and ironclads were invented during the US civil war. You are wrong.
The Turtle is NOT an Ironclad. Sure it was a submergable, but damned we know history shows us it wasn't a successful machine. It's possible the concept transferred to early Southern submergable technology. Regardless, mostly unsuccessful during the Civil War. I'm not ignoring the war machines, but it's clear that those machines did not impact the sway of the war.

Do you really want to call me out on this? I mean, are you so interested in calling me wrong about submarines that you're willing to ignore the topic of the thread? Dust off your ego, my friend. Yes, I was wrong about the submarines (as I mentioned them in passive), but Ironclads and the Confederate machines were made DURING THE WAR! And your Turtle is made of wood. Dude...really?


And the only reason you attack my source is because you can't refute the information.
That's a bold statement coming from someone who simply entered a query into Google and then read a few sentences in the opening statement of a Wikipedia article. Surely I cannot immediately contend with your expansive knowledge, which is based on a quick Wiki search. No, I cannot contend. But I can spend a day or two and produce sources both secondary and primary that may or may not refute.


You spoke on something I knew about something you yourself admitted to being a little rusty on because it had been awhile since you "took civil war courses for your economic history classes"... I think that is how you said it.
I think you did not read what I posted, my friend. I said I knew not details of the Civil War. I studied 19th century economics, which included the Civil War, just not in detail. I cannot tell you who did this or that, I can only use what I learned to describe the economic environment of 19th-century America.


WTF? How did you arrive to that conclusion? I mean you quoted me saying wars are fought for profit more then ideological principles.
Then my apologies if I strayed. Within the context of your post, it appeared to me as if you believed there was some romantic notion to war in the past. If I misunderstood then I retract and apologize again. Maybe it's the soldier in me that gets carried away.


Negative and you should challenge the information provided not the messager of the information. As I said, such tactics are weak.
That is a fair demand. Yet, you only use Wikipedia...A single reference is one thing, but several is another. I can't blame you as the messenger for using Wiki once, but I can challenge you as the messenger if you continue to use it. Think about it.


Again you said yourself you were not too familiar with the subject matter but you just happened to speak on stuff I am familiar with.
I explained this above. I am not familiar with the details of the Civil War (militarily, etc.) but I am familiar with 19th-century economics. I am also learned in modern technology dating as early as 1450. And that includes, to some degree, war machines. (It helps that I spent 8 years in the US Army.)

Again we're off the topic. I won't respond to other challenges. Back to Civil War.

[Anarch]

I love historical debate!



I'm rusty on my Civil War history (only studied it briefly while studying economic history), so I won't argue details...well, because I just don't have the knowledge to.





The Turtle is NOT an Ironclad.




The Ironclads and early submarines were developed by the South during the Civil War, not before.

all emphasis mine to point out the discrepancies.

No I did not twist words or take anything out of context.

I proved you wrong with out batting an eyelash.


But if your gonna lie and bullshit like BB then I don't see the point in continuing the conversation.

[Beatnik Bob]

I am sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The notion that history repeats itself is a saying more than a reality.
I agree, history wont repeat itself per se. But social behavior does repeat.
If it doesn't, and the trends are just perpetual coincidences. Then it means that these coincidences stretch back thousands of years. Society repeats behavior rather consistently. Especially when it pertains to "awakening" periods.

So no, a war cannot actually be predicted. But the movement/society behind the war can be predicted. And this could, theoretically, help to predict the outcome of a war on a specific date, if a war were to occur.
But no, you're right. History itself, in the classical sense, cannot repeat like a science. But social behavior can. Thus why such theorists are called "social historians."



Simple-minded historians can scream "AH-HA" after an event occurs,
I'm not really talking about specific events. There's no actual direct correlation between Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.
Because events can happen with or without a social mood. WWI is one such war that cut off an "awakening" period. WWI doesn't represent something that was ever predictable as a trend (though at the time, some had predicted it). But the social response to WWI was predictable.\

I'm talking about generational social dynamics. At some point, the values of a generation repeat. The general time-span seems to be 80-110 years. Or every fourth generation (every three generations after oneself).

You can't predict 9/11, but you can predict how the incoming children will respond to society. How one responds is not individual behavior, it is socially defined (unless you are reclusive and live alone [or with a small group]. Then these societal trends do not apply to you).
And social definitions definitively repeat themselves.
Give me any event in British and American culture within the past 500 years, and I can show you how it related to the last century.


There exists too many aspects and potential changes in society and culture around the world to predict even the next decade.
Essentially there are 2-3 main factors that will affect a generation. One is peacetime, the other is war. The third is possibly oppression/suppression of some kind. Things that will engender a response.

However, to some extent, these factors don't matter because generations will enact a trend in spite of them. Unless it's war, in which case that could permanently change the generational dynamic.


I can attest to this not only based on my education, but personal experience. Anyone born in the 1970s can attest to what I'm driving at. Hell, even if you were born in the 1980s you have a hint. Society changes faster than we can change our pants.
That is precisely the point.
Society, in fact, changes rapidly every 15-20 years. But in order to see the repetitive trend you would have to be born in the 1570s rather than the 1970s. Personal experience doesn't actually enter into social history, unless you were born in the 1920s, you might notice a similarity between the 1920s and the 90s.
It takes about 100 years (average) for an event to definitively repeat.

Though today's current trend is that it has sped up. For example, it was only 80 years before the last awakening began again after the one in the 1880s.

The reason for this is subject to debate. But my personal opinion is that it has to do with the growing population. More things happen with more people. Flawed reasoning perhaps. But for whatever reason societal behavior repeats faster. At this rate you may as well put the beginning of the next Awakening at around 2030.

Anyway, there are multiple books you can read on the subject.. Let me know if you're interested. :D

[Freddy]

Not so. The War started when the South demanded -- officially and unoffically -- the spread of slavery, and issued War Ultimatums that slavery MUST be spread into the territories, or else war would ensue.

We were all taught a sanitized view of the whole thing. My family came from Virginia, in fact, we came from the Lee family, though no one knows how close to Robert at his father we were.

Still, the truth is, the war -- according to the South itself at the time -- was about the spread of slavery. Not just slavery - but the spread of slavery.

See the Southern Ultimatums issued by Southern leaders in Montgomery -- as reported in Richmond newspapers March 23, 1861. Here were headlines and long articles, which boasted and bragged about the SPREAD of slavery being the number 1 issue.

In fact, of the FIve Ultimatums, all five were about the spread of slavery. All five. This is not what some Northern historian said later, this is what the SOUTHERN leaders said at the time.

The Southern Constitution says essentiallly that -- and this was reported in the paper that day. The Southern editors said the Southern Constitution embodied these Ultimatums, that slavery must spread.

Of course, the famous speeches by VIce President Stephens were quite clear -- the war was about slavery. But also Jeff Davis -- even writing years later, said the "intolerable grievance" was about slavery (equal rights) in the territories. That some in the North did not want slavery in the territories, was what the war was about.

Kansas, as most of us know, just rejected slavery in a four year war. Less well known is the fact that people in Kansas voted 98% to 2 % to keep slavery out forever. Few places on earth were more against slavery than Kansas.

Still -- despite that -- the Southern leaders DEMANDED -- under promise of war -- that slavery MUST be "accepted and respected" in the territories. Never mind that people there were violently opposed to slavery. SLavery MUST spread.

As Toombs shouted to cheering crowds "EXPAND OR PERISH". He was talking about expanding slavery.

As the governor of Florida said in his own "Declaration of Causes" --"just stopping the spread of slavery is like burning us to death slowly".

Few of us are taught how violent and extreme the efforts were to spread slavery - but that was the general and protracted debate for decades. That is what the "Compromise" of 1820 and 1850. Those were not "compromises" any more than a 7-11 night time robbery is a compromise. Each time , slave owners and their families demanded the spread of slavery, or promised war. Each time the Union went along, and allowed it.

But here, in 1861, the South first seceded -- and THEN demanded the spread of slavery. The war was about who got control of the west, was slavery going to spread or not?

That is what Lincoln said, that is what Davis said, that is what many of the leaders said, one way or another. That was the general understanding of the day. That understanding is visible even now, in the Southern newspapers and documents and speeches from that period.

After the South lost, according to Confederate leader John Mosbey, they changed their excuses. Mosbey said that he never heard of ANY OTHER reason, than slavery, at the time. After we lost, he said, men made up all kinds of lofty excuses.

But the issue of who got their way regarding the SPREAD of slavery, was the issue. And the South said so, over, and over, and over. In headlines, in speeches, in books, in documents.

We should really teach that basic truth -- but it's an ugly, and embarrassing truth. We don't like to teach our children that part of our country went to war to SPREAD slavery, and insisted they were led by God.

Read the Southern newspapers and books and speeches from that era. You migh learn something. I did.
Great post!

[pico]

Most Americans don't even really know much about the Civil War. We tend to know very little of our own history, leaving it up to myth and legend to tell us what happened. For instance, most Americans still believe George Washington had wooden teeth, was a brilliant general, and chopped down his father's cherry tree. All three are untrue. Washington did, later in life, wear dentures, but they were made of ivory, not wood. Washington's victories during the American Revolution were mostly luck, not results of brilliant tactical planning; it just so happens that the victories won were important ones. And George Washington never chopped down his father's cherry tree.


One thing that Bob left out, which I feel is important, is the issue of slavery and how it reflected the Southern economy. The South's economy had been in steady decline after the American Revolution, and by the mid-19th century its economy was quite fragile. The Union had begun building larger cities and connecting them via railroad, these cities beacons of economic progress. The South, however, was not interested in this change and wanted to keep their simple agrarian economy. The problem was slavery was terribly inefficient, but the Southerners were too stubborn to realize this.

There was a slight uproar regarding slavery, but a vast minority, which romantics tend to ignore. In 1863, New York City erupted in riots as a response to the draft, and a substantial number of blacks were brutalized and murdered, as the population felt they were the blame for the draft and especially the war. Yes, there were plenty of anti-slavery proponents, but the biggest hold out was by the South for economic reasons more than race reasons. The movement toward plantation farming ultimately issued the coffin nail, as farmers became overseers instead of masters of agriculture. As generations came and went, fewer white southerners actually knew much about agriculture and more or less simply repeated what their parents and grandparents did. With the economy already fragile, removing slavery would bankrupt the South.

The South didn't want the government interfering with their "way of life," but a large part of that was for economic reasons. Their understanding of agriculture was limited to plantations, which required substantial laborers, and many wealthy owners stood to loose a great deal of future profits. Whether the war occurred or not, it's likely the South would have gone bankrupt within a few decades anyway.

Basically, too many in this country leave the teaching of US history to the public school system, which is completely rubbish. The war did little to improve anything in the South, as the oppressive US government instituted reconstruction measures which basically cause animosity on the part of white southerners for generations, even to this day. On top of that, blacks were still treated poorly, actually worse after the war. Irish laborers were encouraged to work, as they would work for less than even the blacks, but if they died, then there was no owner to have an asset disappear.

It can be argued that the war was over slavery, and it likely was to some wealthy southerners and northern abolitionists... but the funny thing in all of it is that Lincoln freed the southern slaves not out of any feel good policy, but it was purely political, to gain favor in the northern radical circles.

I have ancestors that fought on both sides of the conflict (aka War of Northern Aggression), and can say that while one in particular was wealthy from Louisiana, the rest were dirt poor and had been born in Ireland, recently immigrated to America. They fought in Georgia regiments and certainly weren't fighting to protect the interests of Slave owners... and the family was poor up until the later part of the 20th century. Clearly, they fought for other reasons... likely because they could freely come to the Irish Catholic region of Georgia without fear of seeing signs like "Irish Need Not Apply", which was the common racist sentiment in the North.

This topic is far to big and varied to be handled easily by this forum.

[pico]

Great post!

That is not exactly true. The while the war was fostered by many elites in the South to keep their slaves/assets, the problem was that they feared a United States Government infringing on their State Rights. While slavery was not feasible/necessary in many northern and western climates, having these non supportive States be swayed into a possible future law granting freedom at a later date was too much for some to ignore. For others, likely the majority poor whites in the South, they saw these additional territories becoming States as a threat to their Senatorial powers they had grown to accept. Up until Polk's manifest destiny, which was a terrible policy for the US towards native Americans, the power was not so one sided in view. When westward expansion threatened the power, and the Federal government became somewhat stronger, then the South said enough.

While South Carolina militia under PGT Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter, this was done as a result of Federal troop movements from a different fort, as well as simply not adhering with the State's demand to vacate the premises. They were evicted thru force of arms, which any nation should have the right to do to maintain law and order... and in this case, the State of South Carolina was acting as an independent governing body.

[Anarch]

.

This topic is far to big and varied to be handled easily by this forum.


Epic post!

To comment only on my quoted line:

IF the topic were allowed to free flow to and fro to ebb and float all around the subject in general on topic ways then maybe...but yeah... as we are I think your right. Big Complex topic which would be rash to easily sum up into cliffnotes for internet bullet points.

[pico]

While looking back 150 years after the conflict, it is difficult for many to understand the southern philosophy, and even more difficult to justify slavery. I cannot defend a practice like such, but must admit that in my reading of the events that took place after the Civil War, up until perhaps the mid 1870's, the South was a terrible place to live. The vast migration westward should prove that staying in place to rebuild a life was not often enough the best option for many. Blacks competed with Irish laborers, and often found themselves out of work, both in the north and south, because they were simply not wanted. They were most of the time unskilled, and the minority european immigrants undercut their salaries while still remaining white. The animosity created by the conflict lives on, and in many ways I feel a great sense of disdain over it, even though I obviously was not a part of it. What is somewhat interesting is that many today see the same problems with Washington DC that the southern States felt, although the reasons can be obviously different. When people feel they are not adequately represented, conflicts occur, which is how we became a nation in the first place.

[Freddy]

While South Carolina militia under PGT Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter, this was done as a result of Federal troop movements from a different fort, as well as simply not adhering with the State's demand to vacate the premises. They were evicted thru force of arms, which any nation should have the right to do to maintain law and order... and in this case, the State of South Carolina was acting as an independent governing body.
That is incorrect. Jefferson Davis ordered the firing on Fort Sumter. Major Anderson had orders allowing him control of all three federal forts in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina had no legal authority to demand US government troops to vacate US soil. Fort Sumter and the other forts belonged to the US not South Carolina. Jefferson Davis was warned by his own Secretary of State Robert Toombs, not to fire on Fort Sumter as it would start a war the South could not possibly win. Davis failed to listen. The Confederacy including SC was never a nation, see Texas v. White 1869., the law of the land. You claiming otherwise does not make it a fact.

[pico]

A case from 1869 does not validate or invalidate actions taken in 1861. Also, having Federal troop movements from various military bases under cover of night can be assumed (since I was not there) as a possible military action, and by rousing the South Carolina militia to action can be construed as sound military wisdom. You cannot hope to understand what was going thru these folks minds back then, and by changing military troop placements was enough to set the stage for the ugly event.

[Freddy]

A case from 1869 does not validate or invalidate actions taken in 1861. Also, having Federal troop movements from various military bases under cover of night can be assumed (since I was not there) as a possible military action, and by rousing the South Carolina militia to action can be construed as sound military wisdom. You cannot hope to understand what was going thru these folks minds back then, and by changing military troop placements was enough to set the stage for the ugly event.
You are wrong again. Texas v. White 1869 ruled state secession in 1860-1861 to be unconstitutional. That is a fact.

Anderson moved to Fort Sumter on December 26, 1860. Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter to be leveled on April 9, 1861 some three plus months after the occupation of Fort Sumter.

I understand exactly what was going on. The Confederacy wanted no part of the US and was willing to start a war to achieve that aim.

[pico]

You are wrong again. Texas v. White 1869 ruled state secession in 1860-1861 to be unconstitutional. That is a fact.

You misunderstand, or are blinded. How can any case in 1869 rule successfully, for that matter, events that happened in 1860-61 and not be either biased or completely niave? The war took place by individuals for any number of reasons. West Virginia was likely glad to see an excuse to become a separate state with independent voting to Virginia, just a s much as some wanted to see a continuation of slavery. The infringments made by the National Government, which was coming into its own at that time, was in fact taking much power that it was not authorized to take. The policy of Manifest destiny was another example of the federal government stealing from others... but since they were natives, they get a pass even to this day.

The outlying forts were evacuated prior to the shots being fired, but at the same time, the US government refused to leave, which was prudent given the fact that South Carolina had broken away. With that said, supplies were sent to the fort, and the supply ship tried to run a blockade setup by the government of South Carolina. This action, as well as the strenthening of Fort Sumter thru the abandonment of the other federal fortifications, led to the shots being fired. The federal government should have left, and then over half a million souls would have had a better chance at life.

[Beatnik Bob]

You are wrong again. Texas v. White 1869 ruled state secession in 1860-1861 to be unconstitutional. That is a fact.
I'm sure that was unbiased.
What are they going to do? Rule almost 10 years after the fact that secession was legal?
Like that would happen. The South didn't have much of a democratic voice during Reconstruction.
(Though to be honest, if secession was so "illegal" it is a wonder that West Virginia's secession from Virginia was honored as "legal").

But it is equally illegal for the Federal Government to invade a State/State Government. That would be like Brussels sending out an edict that required its member states to attack Spain (ex.) for leaving the E.U.

The entire Civil War was a massive breach in all things democracy. Often from both sides.
And it isn't like the Union wasn't sympathetic to this. States like New York were recognizing that the federal government was beginning to own states like property. New York wasn't allowed to decide for itself if it did or did not want to invade the Confederacy. The fed forced them to. Which is why there was a considerable amount of anti-Union sentiment in Northern States.

The Civil War basically destroyed the Republic. America is less of a Republic/Union than it was. States represent federal zones, essentially. Which is too bad.


To put it bluntly, the South may have seceded for the right of states to have slavery, but the north invaded to "preserve the union." The war wasn't truly about slavery, unless you are naive enough to blame the South for everything regarding the war, when the North had reasons of their own. It takes two sides to fight a war, and before you botch history into something one-sided, this should be remembered. The North wasn't fighting to end slavery at all. From a Northern perspective, it had nothing to do with slavery. Though for the South, it was the state right cited on everything.
So it's good to remember why the federal government fought. And it had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Not until Lincoln used the Gettysburg Address to define the North's role as an endeavor to abolish slavery.

Concerning the federal government, at most, the federal government could only demand that its member-states invade South Carolina, since South Carolina (not the entire south) attacked troops.
Every southern state except South Carolina did not start the war. The federal government had started a war on them. SC didn't consult other states before they acted.


I understand exactly what was going on. The Confederacy wanted no part of the US and was willing to start a war to achieve that aim.
They shouldn't have had to start a war.

The whole notion of a Democratic Republic is that you consent to have representatives represent you. If they do not, then you don't have to have them as representatives anymore.
This was the Colonial complaint Americans had with Britain. Britain didn't represent them, so they didn't "lawfully" have to be represented by Britain.

It's not like Southern states were undemocratic. They voted to secede--and they seceded. The general understanding was, if you can vote in, you can vote out. And they voted out.
Just because the South was forced to have to fight for something that was decided democratically is not really important.
I realize the hypocrisy that the South was equally un-democratic for continuing slavery. But slavery was already on its way out and it was a dying practice. Putting aside how abhorrent slavery was, the original Democratic Republican ideology suggested that people consent to be governed.

The federal government wasn't supposed to be able to own states. It was supposed to represent them and provide for "common welfare."
The bond between states was similar to what the E.U. is now.

[Waymarker]

My take on the ACW is that the southern politicians and generals must have been pretty dumb to start it in the first place.
What they should have done was to sit down together first and discuss the question "Can we win a war against the north?"
The answer would have been "No" because of the north's greater manpower pool and greater arms-manufacturing industry.
In short, the south broke a cardinal rule of warfare-"Never start a war unless you're pretty certain you can win it", and got their asses whupped.
A better route worth trying would have been for them to simply announce Secession by saying "We're now completely separate from the northern states" and leave it at that to see what the north's reaction would be.
But no, not only did they announce Secession, but they also fired on Fort Sumter and went marching towards Washington, thereby provoking the north to take up arms, again breaking another rule of warfare-"The greatest warrior is the one who never has to fight a battle"- (Sun Tzu, 600 BC)
The south went looking for trouble with their guns drawn and they found it, and a lot of good men--south and north-- got needlessly killed

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/battleflag.jpg

[Beatnik Bob]

The South's goal wasn't to win per se.
It was to tire the North into letting the South secede, and/or convince a European power like Britain or France to help them out. If the South could secede without a fight, they would have.

But more importantly, you're wrong.
At the first battle of Bull Run, the South soundly defeated Union troops. And if they hadn't stopped to eat the food left behind by onlooking picnickers, they could have marched straight into Washington DC (uninhibited) and held Lincoln at gun point.

It was that easy.
In fact, the South probably could have won if not for poor strategy at Gettysburg.... And the picket's charge fiasco.
The fact remains, that even when Union troops outnumbered Southerners, they seemed to have great difficulty fighting them. Antietam, for example. And as it stands, more Northerners died. And not because they were better soldiers.

[BLACKBIRD]

Im an aussie and dont know a great deal about american history but to my understanding the civil war was started when the south didnt want to give up their right to own slaves and the north-lead by i think abraham lincon did.i think it had something to do with farming and trade and the south relied heavily on slaves to produce food,cotton etc for export to england and other countrys.was it the emancipation proclumation or something like that?setting the slaves free was bad for buisness.but the north were more powerful.
i guess in one way the people who won were slaves even if they still werent treated well in history at least they were free from being owned by another human being.

[Waymarker]

Incidentally the North weren't blameless, they needlessly provoked the South by manning Fort Sumter in dixie with Union troops, so I think that insult would have stuck in my craw too if i'd been a southerner..

[pico]

Im an aussie and dont know a great deal about american history but to my understanding the civil war was started when the south didnt want to give up their right to own slaves and the north-lead by i think abraham lincon did.i think it had something to do with farming and trade and the south relied heavily on slaves to produce food,cotton etc for export to england and other countrys.was it the emancipation proclumation or something like that?setting the slaves free was bad for buisness.but the north were more powerful.
i guess in one way the people who won were slaves even if they still werent treated well in history at least they were free from being owned by another human being.

You sound like you were taught from the same books here in the US. The fact is that the war was brought about over the concept that the Southern States wanted strong State powers, whereas new new administration under Lincoln, and other administrations in the past, were pushing for a stronger Federal government. Slavery was an issue, but just one of several bigger ideas at play. Southern States wanted to maintain a degree of control over themselves, and felt they would lose any control if they remained in the United States, as they had long ago lost control with the House of reps, but would then also lose any power base they had with the Senate with the addition of the many new States just prior to the Civil War, as well as during the War with the addition of West Virginia.

The only way the CSA could have won against the USA would have been to make the war so painful the people would vote out Lincoln, or perhaps get international support via England and France recognizing their legitimacy and providing aid in the form of supplies and military.

With the loss at Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg, morale sank... but the Southern armies recovered. They were able to mount successful defenses in much of 1864, but it was the disaster the Army of Tennessee experienced from Chatanooga until Franklin and Nashville that really did the CSA in. Gen. Bragg was likely the worst commanding general of a major CSA army thru the war, and he had Jeff. Davis' confidence for far too long. When he allowed Missionary Ridge to collapse... which was arguable the most easily won... but lost battle of the war, the campaign in and around Atlanta was pretty much a sure thing for the USA. Then, John Hood was eventually given command of an army he had never truly been a part of, and led them to ruin, leaving Sherman free to drive on Savannah. After the fall of Savannah, huge numbers of southern soldiers from Savannah and Charleston desserted to protect their family and homes from yankee scum burning and attacking civilians. If the USA would have lost at Chatanooga and been forced to either surrender or retreat into Kentucky, it would have spared Georgia and the war would have been much harder fought throughout the end of 1864 and into 1865, with the outcome we know today likely not happening. The South could have shifted more troops and far greater nnumbers of supplies and food into the Petersburg and Richmond areas if they would have fallen under siege, and no retreat would have been necessary when it occurred, and likely CSA offensive opperations might have resumed. On top of that, Longstreets failed campaign into Kentucky after the Battle of Chickamauga would likely not have happened, with him likely remaining with the Army of Northern Virginia. Georgia militia units would have been able to either get mustered into CSA service or been able to perform coastal duty at home, keeping their morale high. The additional troops shuffled north might have been able to allow the army under Beauregard to attack and likely defeat Butler on the James River, thereby threatening the flank of the Army of the Potomac, and would have been far different.

[BLACKBIRD]

interesting stuff pico,thanks for the reply,you seem to know your stuff.I think america is the best country in the world,except for australia.

[Kiehlroy]

We love you Aussies too, my step-dad is from down there.

Concerning the subject, I'm glad this turned into an informative thread. I've been trying to piece together the history as unbiasedly as possible but I have found that much of the available information is wildly biased.

Anyways, I notice that no one has mentioned the Morrill Tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff) and other legislation that seems to have been a definite source of tension leading up to the war. From what I gather much of it seems very antagonistic. But I'm no scholar.

Also, wasn't Ft. Sumter also a federal tax collection facility.

[Beatnik Bob]

The only way the CSA could have won against the USA would have been to make the war so painful the people would vote out Lincoln, or perhaps get international support via England and France recognizing their legitimacy and providing aid in the form of supplies and military.
Or they could have won in the first battle of Bull Run by marching straight to DC instead of stopping to celebrate their victory. They could have easily held Lincoln at gunpoint, and the war would be over nearly as soon as it started.


With the loss at Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg, morale sank... but the Southern armies recovered. They were able to mount successful defenses in much of 1864, but it was the disaster the Army of Tennessee experienced from Chatanooga until Franklin and Nashville that really did the CSA in.
Let's face it, the South was done after the North defeated Lee. As in, they had literally no hope.
After that point, not only was it just a matter of time, but they would have to be on the defensive for the rest of the war. And you cannot ever win a war if you are consistently on the defensive.


Gen. Bragg was likely the worst commanding general of a major CSA army thru the war, and he had Jeff. Davis' confidence for far too long.
Because he was a really good captain (or officer maybe, not sure what he was) in the Texan revolution. He served in the Mexican war as well I believe.

You cannot blame Bragg for poor leadership, because he didn't have a great deal to work with, since the South had been cut in half by Union forces (preventing troops from Texas being able to fight on the "front").


When he allowed Missionary Ridge to collapse...
But seriously, it wasn't his fault. What was he supposed to do? The war was lost before less strategic areas in Tennessee were invaded.


which was arguable the most easily won... but lost battle of the war, the campaign in and around Atlanta was pretty much a sure thing for the USA. Then, John Hood was eventually given command of an army he had never truly been a part of, and led them to ruin, leaving Sherman free to drive on Savannah.
Actually, no.
Southerners burnt most of Atlanta to the ground before Sherman got there. Given, Sherman burnt everything but churches and hospitals, but the Southerners burnt their own town.
Not that Atlanta was remotely large. Not nearly as big as Charleston or New Orleans. But it was strategic in terms of the railway.
But, they still had no hope of preventing Sherman's march.


After the fall of Savannah, huge numbers of southern soldiers from Savannah and Charleston desserted to protect their family and homes from yankee scum burning and attacking civilians.
Many of the "Yankee scum" weren't Yankees at all, but rather were freed slaves that Sherman had help him in his march.
Which doesn't mean Sherman wasn't an asshole--he was--but there were others assisting in the the Northern ravaging of Georgia.


If the USA would have lost at Chatanooga and been forced to either surrender or retreat into Kentucky, it would have spared Georgia and the war would have been much harder fought throughout the end of 1864 and into 1865, with the outcome we know today likely not happening.
The South would have still lost. The turning point was when Lee was defeated. And Picket's charge: the worst military plan ever invented.

So by that time, the Federalists would have still beat the Confederates.



The South could have shifted more troops and far greater nnumbers of supplies and food into the Petersburg and Richmond areas if they would have fallen under siege, and no retreat would have been necessary when it occurred, and likely CSA offensive opperations might have resumed. On top of that, Longstreets failed campaign into Kentucky after the Battle of Chickamauga would likely not have happened, with him likely remaining with the Army of Northern Virginia. Georgia militia units would have been able to either get mustered into CSA service or been able to perform coastal duty at home, keeping their morale high. The additional troops shuffled north might have been able to allow the army under Beauregard to attack and likely defeat Butler on the James River, thereby threatening the flank of the Army of the Potomac, and would have been far different.
But you see, by this time Lincoln had already made the war about slavery.

The South didn't care about Lincoln, they cared about Northern opinion. And many Northerners were not only loath to be drafted into the Federalist army, but they supported the South.
There were anti-Union and anti-draft riots in Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Lincoln had to go in disguise to the White House for his inauguration because the people in Maryland would have killed him.
A very large number of northerners supported the right of the South to secede, and did not support a war for the Union.
So the South was often trying to appeal to these states. Not make enemies with them. They tried to find a common enemy of Lincoln within Northerners.

However, when Lincoln made the war about slavery after Gettysburg. The war might as well have ended there, because Northerners supported the right of the South to secede, and many of them may have been anti-Unionists, but they certainly didn't support slavery.

So, smart bit of propaganda on Lincoln's part. Gettysburg brought support from Northerners toward the Union--because of slavery being made the issue.

[pico]

The South would have still lost. The turning point was when Lee was defeated. And Picket's charge: the worst military plan ever invented.


While that was indeed the turning point for the Army of Northern Virginia, they had plenty of fight left in them. They had left what amount to nearly a corp of soldiers in the Richmond area during the Gettysburg campaing under the command of Gen DH Hill, and North Caolina still had vast amounts of supplies and soldiers just to the south.

Books have been written on these matters that go into extensive detail, but having the Mississippi under US control preventing Texas from shipping in soldiers and supplies was not going to bring down the CSA. Texas was largely still lightly populated, and they had absolutely no manufacturing there. Louisiana was still recruiting soldiers, and many were in the Trans Mississippi serving in Arkansas and Louisiana.

The major killer to the CSA clearly was the march thru Georgia and the loss of Atlanta and especially Savannah. This did little to actually split the CSA, but the vast amount of destruction caused by Yankee soldiers going thru the region left a huge path of waste. This crushed the morale of many Georgia and then South Carolina soldiers in both the Army of Tennessee and the Army of Northern Virginia, causing many to desert. Look at the rosters for many Georgia regiments. My great great grandfather was a private in company A 18th Georgia Battallion. He enlisted in 1862 and fought at Battery Wagner in 1863. The 18th GA Batt had been a Savannah militia unit, and began with well over 800 serving. After Wagner, they were transferred to the Petersburg/Richmond defenses. By late 1896, the unit was shrinking rapidly from desertion, with the fall of Savannah (the main city of GA troop enlistment). This unit joined in the general retreat from Richmond, and when they were forced to surrender in April 1865 at the Battle of Saylors Creek, only 15 from this groups were left to surrender (8 of whom were the colored musicians).

[Cartesiantheater]

[...]

It can be argued that the war was over slavery, and it likely was to some wealthy southerners and northern abolitionists... but the funny thing in all of it is that Lincoln freed the southern slaves not out of any feel good policy, but it was purely political, to gain favor in the northern radical circles.

That is not really true. It was both. Abraham Lincoln said the following, distinguishing between his personal moral views and wishes and his duty as President:



My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.


However, in the very same letter, he says this, qualifying what he had just remarked:



I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.



So you see, it was both a political move AND a "feel good policy" to free the slaves.

However, Lincoln wasn't the only one involved in either the Civil War or Abolition. Some congressmen no doubt wanted to use the issue of slavery to help with the Civil War, while others no doubt wanted to use the Civil War to end slavery; Thaddeus Stevens, for example, was most assuredly wanting to take advantage of the Civil War to end slavery. He was quite RADICAL on the matter (Radical Republican pun).



It is said the South will never submit — that we cannot conquer the rebels — that they will suffer themselves to be slaughtered, and their whole country to be laid waste. Sir, war is a grievous thing at best, and civil war more than any other ; but if they hold this language, and the means which they have suggested must be resorted to ; if their whole country must be laid waste and made a desert, in order to save this Union from destruction, so let it be. I would rather, Sir, reduce them to a condition where their whole country is to be re-peopled by a band of freemen, than to see them perpetrate the destruction of this people through our agency. I do not say it is time to resort to such means, and I do not say that the time will come, but I never fear to express my sentiments. It is not a question with me of policy, but a question of principle.


As you can see here, he appears to be more than willing to completely destroy the South in order to repopulate it with freed slaves.





I have ancestors that fought on both sides of the conflict (aka War of Northern Aggression), and can say that while one in particular was wealthy from Louisiana, the rest were dirt poor and had been born in Ireland, recently immigrated to America. They fought in Georgia regiments and certainly weren't fighting to protect the interests of Slave owners... and the family was poor up until the later part of the 20th century. Clearly, they fought for other reasons... likely because they could freely come to the Irish Catholic region of Georgia without fear of seeing signs like "Irish Need Not Apply", which was the common racist sentiment in the North.

This topic is far to big and varied to be handled easily by this forum.


Regarding the cause of Civil War. Obviously, individual soldiers are not going to be representative in all cases of the motivations of their commanders and leaders. However, one very important leader for the Confederates, Alexander Stephens (their Vice President), said this:



The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us...


He quite clearly articulates that his motivation was the continuation of slavery. Now, obviously this wasn't just about predjudice and the Southern view of the African American's place at the time. It was obviously about slavery as a tool for the economy. In light of that, however, it is quite dishonest to claim the Civil War was not about slavery. That would be like saying the current political debate isn't about spending and taxes, but is instead about the economy. Do you see how stupid that sounds? Same thing with the Civil War.










You sound like you were taught from the same books here in the US. The fact is that the war was brought about over the concept that the Southern States wanted strong State powers, whereas new new administration under Lincoln, and other administrations in the past, were pushing for a stronger Federal government. Slavery was an issue, but just one of several bigger ideas at play. Southern States wanted to maintain a degree of control over themselves, and felt they would lose any control if they remained in the United States, as they had long ago lost control with the House of reps, but would then also lose any power base they had with the Senate with the addition of the many new States just prior to the Civil War, as well as during the War with the addition of West Virginia.



The Civil War was NOT about "States rights" in the way you mean here. Well, it is about that NOW, in the South anyway, but it wasn't THEN.

The reality is that Confederates OPPOSED States rights. They OPPOSED the Northern State's rights to outlaw slavery IN NORTHERN STATES, including in the case of slaves who escaped to the North. They demanded that the Northern States conform to their laws regarding slavery, particularly in the way that the South defined escaped slaves as missing property while the North defined escaped slaves as free men, and the Southern desire to continue to have slaves as property even when they entered into the jurisdiction of Northern states- there were no laws in the North categorizing humans as property, yet the South insisted that the North conform to Southern Laws regarding slaves. In the North, human beings could not be legal property, but the South wanted to extend their jurisdiction to the North in the case of slaves who were "lost" in the North. This is (ironically) EXACTLY like the Federal Government extending its jurisdiction to the States today. The South wanted the North to conform to their Laws, and they feared the growing hostility to the institution of slavery in the North.

If you smoke week in Colorado, and then drive down to New Mexico while on vacation, would you still be able to legally smoke weed? NO SIR, YOU WOULD NOT. Because Colorado has no right to infringe upon the rights of the State of New Mexico. Saying it was about States rights is only correct in the sense that it was about the South wanting to infringe upon the rights of the Northern States.










We love you Aussies too, my step-dad is from down there.

Concerning the subject, I'm glad this turned into an informative thread. I've been trying to piece together the history as unbiasedly as possible but I have found that much of the available information is wildly biased.

Anyways, I notice that no one has mentioned the Morrill Tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff) and other legislation that seems to have been a definite source of tension leading up to the war. From what I gather much of it seems very antagonistic. But I'm no scholar.

Also, wasn't Ft. Sumter also a federal tax collection facility.

Except most states had already seceded before the Morill Tariff was passed. That one is one of the popular revisionist attempts to change the cause to "anything but slavery." While it isn't NOW considered a peripheral part of secessionist thought by southerners, at the TIME it was significantly less important than the election of Lincoln and the slavery issue, and the Northern state trends regarding that issue (once again, history is tainted by people looking at it through modern lenses. States rights versus the Federal Government, taxation, etc, are huge issues NOW, and have been for some decades as the Federal Government has grown in power, and as a result people in the South view the history of the Civil War through that prism. It wasn't quite the same situation.). However, beginning with Reconstruction, the political game was POINTED THAT WAY by the South in their aims to keep the nation for white men, as Andrew Johnson put it:



This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.


And then on to the Jim Crow states. States rights were the shield behind which such things were enacted and continued.



So in essence, the "States rights" argument in the South was not the cause of the Civil War, but was rather the means of preservation of the state of the South as much as possible immediately after the Civil War.


It is a myth, proven simply by reading the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:


Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


[...]


No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The South weren't victims of imposition by the North. They wanted to impose their laws upon the other States. They were the tyrants trying to infringe upon States rights. They wanted to force other States to comply with their laws whenever any of their citizens traveled to another State with a slave. This is the equivalent of Colorado or Washington demanding that another State respect their citizen's rights to possess marijuana while those citizens are in another state. It is ludicrous to say that the OTHER states are infringing upon Colorado or Washington because they prohibit the possession of marijuana. Likewise, it is quite ludicrous to claim that the North was infringing upon Southern State's rights because the North did not legally recognize slaves as property when those slaves were in a Northern state.

[pico]

Sorry not to notice this sooner. I would disagree with you about what you call the reasonings behind the war. For decades prior to any action being taken militarily by either side, the north continually tried to pass taxes that would have severely damaged the economy in the south. At the time of the later 1850's, the nation was in poor economic shape, with the South actually maintaining much of the way of life without so much economic hardship that was visiting the north. The northern states began to push for more taxation thru imports and exports that would hurt the argibusiness that was heavy in the south. This was another underlying cause of the war. Also, look to states that were coming into the US. Kansas was a slave holding state prior to the mid 1850's, when large numbers of abolitionists entered for a sham of a vote. They not only simply came to vote Kansas as a free state, they burned and chased off many pro southern leaning folks, even lynching some. While the south did not have clean hands, there was a fundamental difference of opinion that went beyond slavery in most cases.

[Cartesiantheater]

Sorry not to notice this sooner. I would disagree with you about what you call the reasonings behind the war. For decades prior to any action being taken militarily by either side, the north continually tried to pass taxes that would have severely damaged the economy in the south. At the time of the later 1850's, the nation was in poor economic shape, with the South actually maintaining much of the way of life without so much economic hardship that was visiting the north. The northern states began to push for more taxation thru imports and exports that would hurt the argibusiness that was heavy in the south. This was another underlying cause of the war. Also, look to states that were coming into the US. Kansas was a slave holding state prior to the mid 1850's, when large numbers of abolitionists entered for a sham of a vote. They not only simply came to vote Kansas as a free state, they burned and chased off many pro southern leaning folks, even lynching some. While the south did not have clean hands, there was a fundamental difference of opinion that went beyond slavery in most cases.

The Morrill Tariff was not the cause of the civil war. It was hardly mentioned in the succession convention in Georgia. Lincoln's election, and slavery, however, were very big parts of that convention. I believe I already pointed this out. And note that unlike you and other Confederate sympathizers (let's not pretend here, come on...), I'm not citing historical instances and then claiming they were the cause of the Civil War. I was citing the LEADERS OF THE SECESSIONISTS, who THEMSELVES stated in their OWN SECESSIONIST writings and speeches that slavery was the main reason. As I posted earlier, the Vice President of the Confederate States said it himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us...

How can you argue against that when it came straight from the Horse's mouth itself? Is your historical analysis one that completely ignores the words of those who lived at the time describing their motivations? You just dismiss exactly what the players in the act said and vaguely site "taxes" and "tariffs?" Makes sense /sarcasm.







In fact, the present tariffs of the time (1957) were written by Southerners. So list some more that led to the South deciding to attack the north and/or secede, if you please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857



Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states, which tended to be export dependent and tended to support the "free trade" position. They were also joined by a handful of New England wool manufacturers. This constituency traditionally supported protectionism in the 19th century.


As for the Morrill Tariff, the succession had already begun by then.

You've got it backwards. Slavery was the main issue, and tariffs and the like were the peripheral issues. Even in your sham vote you list here, slavery was the issue.









In fact, let me list some of the secession declarations:




The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.


Not about slavery there /sarcasm


In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

No slavery here boss /sarcasm.



The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


"Property" refers to SLAVES here. Yeah, slavery definitely wasn't the primary cause /sarcasm.




Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

[...]

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.[..]




http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The word "slavery" was found 38 times in these four documents. The word "tariffs" ZERO times. The word "tax" or "taxes" EXACTLY ONE time.


What was the primary issue again?


At some point you've got to start looking at history through the WORDS OF THE PARTICIPANTS rather than through the words of revisionists or descendants of participants who want to paint their ancestor's in the best light possible.

[Rockytrawn]

I am posting this not a a religious tract, but as an example of the thoughts of the local participants in the Civil War just prior to the outbreak - I found this prophecy from the 1830's which suggests that slavery, the involvement of South Carolina, and the expectation of a coming conflict were something that were common to the period and in the public thoughts just prior to the onset of the war. It should be noted that Joseph Smith was a presidential candidate running on a platform of abolition, prison reform and women's rights:

" Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:
12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the adifficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a avoice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the awars that will bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, aslaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the aremnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the asword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall bmourn; and with cfamine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and dchastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the ablood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."

[Freddy]

I am posting this not a a religious tract, but as an example of the thoughts of the local participants in the Civil War just prior to the outbreak - I found this prophecy from the 1830's which suggests that slavery, the involvement of South Carolina, and the expectation of a coming conflict were something that were common to the period and in the public thoughts just prior to the onset of the war. It should be noted that Joseph Smith was a presidential candidate running on a platform of abolition, prison reform and women's rights:

" Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:
12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the adifficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a avoice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the awars that will bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, aslaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the aremnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the asword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall bmourn; and with cfamine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and dchastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the ablood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."
Andrew Jackson said the same thing in 1833.

"WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833.
MY DEAR SIR:
I have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext—its burden was on your coarse woolens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent, for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at fifty per cent., reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent, more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question.

My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to your lady and family and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you.
Andrew Jackson"
Letter of Andrew Jackson to Reverend A J Crawford